“It’s not the same Gene Rosen that has the SAG card.”
Lol, is that the only evidence the truthers had for saying he was an actor? I’m pretty sure you can find someone in SAG with nearly any common American name. In fact, I just checked, and there is an actor with my exact first and last name, so I’m sure you could find “me” in the SAG database. Doesn’t make me an actor though, otherwise I am missing out on some royalties :)
I don’t get your obsession with Gene. At best, Gene is a guy who embelishes a story hoping nobody notices. At worst, he is a liar who, if anybody cared, would immediately be found out, simply by interviewing kids and finding that none of the kids were at his house.
But his story is a total red herring as regards the shooting. He’s a sideshow. But as you said elsewhere, people who are vainly trying to spin a conspiracy by ignoring reality (like that a school really has students, even if you don’t see them in a video) like Gene very much, because he is a bizarre guy with a shaky story.
I approach these kinds of things differently than most people. We are all observing a black box, and we take measurements (the various stories). The measurements are error-prone, and you need to put various measurements together to get a better picture of reality (in signal processing, you can get a pretty accurate result with a lot of very inaccurate measurements if you know the error statistics of the measurements).
So, I start by presuming that Gene isn’t a pure liar. Why? Because if he made the whole thing up, someone would know by now. You don’t think ANY reporter has questioned all the survivors from Soto’s class? OR that none of the parents got to thinking about Gene, and would say something like “well, we didn’t go to Gene’s house — who did?”
It’s not that he couldn’t be lying. It is just that, if he is, we’ll know eventually. Because there will be an official report, and there will be witness statements, and I’m betting Gene, as someone who claims to have spoken with the kids, would be questioned, and his recollection of what the kids said would be added to interviews with the kids who were at his house.
And if there were no kids at his house, the report will tell us that.
So, since we’ll KNOW that for a fact eventually, I focus on possibilities that won’t be easily determined. So I figure kids were at his house. How many? Who? How were they picked up? That is all pretty much in the noise. He could get all those facts wrong, but still have had kids at his house.
I would start with the bus driver. Unlike the kids, a bus driver can be harassed by police and by reporters. So some enterprising reporter should have found that bus driver by now, and asked about Gene. That would give evidence one way or another.
Gene would have to know this. Now, some liars keep everything vague, because they don’t want to give easily falsified statements. Gene certainly gave lots of details. But some liars give details, specifically because if you don’t have time to research, people take detail as proof of fact.
And here is where the “Gene is a distraction” comes in. If Gene was important, I can pretty much guarantee that police would have questioned him, reporters would have investigated his story for truth. So either they DID, and found nothing seriously wrong, and that’s why we haven’t read about him being a liar, or they have NOT, because his story is meaningless to the actual shooting.
Gene to me could easily be a liar. If a reporter said that tomorrow, I wouldn’t doubt it. I just haven’t seen enough evidence yet to say that his entire story is false. If the official report says that kids were in his house, I won’t be surprised. If it says they were not, i won’t be surprised either.
And no matter what, it will make no difference to my understanding of the shooting. You might as well ask whether the kids got hot chocolate at the fire house.